User talk:Acad Ronin/Archive 6

Copyediting
I appreciate that you're taking the time to look over articles like hemmema. I don't agree with all your tweaks, but I do appreciate them overall. But I urge you to be more careful before making changes like this one. You've split referenced paragraphs, leaving some paragraphs without references. Those paragraphs were clearly cohesive, so editing them down to just to match the length of other paragraphs seems a bit arbitrary. And in this edit, you lifted out statements belonging to a specific reference (diagonal bracers) and made it look like it belonged to a completely different ref.

I recommend that you edit text in "reference blocks". If copyediting leads to shuffling around referenced statements, it should be solved "within" the specific range of the relevant references. If not, take care to preserve the actual references. Unless there's a need to solve confused grammar, moving stuff around might create more problems than it solves.

Peter Isotalo 07:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Barwell (1782)
Hi Acad Ronin, I was just reading your edits to Barwell (1782 ship) and wondered if the Armenian and Cornwallis are actually the EIC Extra Ships Armenia and Cornwallis? Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, have you tried the EIC ships Earl Cornwallis or Marquis Cornwallis? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I found the webpage that listed that John Poole (John Toole) as allegedly stealing her http://www.eicships.info/ships/shipdetail.asp?sid=841. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

display title and default sort
A couple of reminders:

is properly a magic word, not a template, and uses a slightly different markup, with a colon instead of a pipe: for example,, not.

is also a magic word, but there are several templates that can be used as shortcuts, such as Italic title. Italic title can even be used on articles with titles like Bengal Merchant (1812 ship); it will automatically avoid adding italics to the bit in brackets at the end.

Hope this helps. — Paul A (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Copying between Wikipedia articles
Back in June 2011 you copied some text from HMS Comus (1806) to Battle of Copenhagen (1807). There is a guideline on making such copies WP:Copying within Wikipedia, and as you were the contributor of the original text attribution as described in that guideline was necessary (WP:NOATT) to include attribution back to the original article for copyright reasons.

However attribution back to the original article would have been useful for other reasons as outlined in the section "Other reasons for attributing text", because when you copied the text with a short citation, you forgot to copy the long citation to go with it. If you had included a mention in the edit history from whence the copy came it would have been easier to find the original and fix the problem. -- PBS (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One easy way to do it is with a small or dummy edit to an article and place it in the edit history as I did here or a revert and reinsert as I recently did here.


 * Another option which I am no so keen on personally is to add a note to the talk page as was done here using template:copied.
 * -- PBS (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Cumberland-San Martin, Thames?
Hi Acad Ronin,

I found in archive.org the page of the old image:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120426041353/http://www.sanmartiniano.gov.ar/textos/parte2/texto080.php

In the caption of the image the page gives also the name "Thames" to the Cumberland. Do you have any information about?. In http://www.todoababor.es/datos_docum/nav_prov_chile.htm the name "Thames" doesn't appear.

Best regards, -- Keysanger (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[My misunderstanding] Your removal of text regarding Alpha Bank asking for emergency funding from Central Bank of Greece
Hi, I have noticed that you have undone the following addition to Alpha Bank article, stating Alpha Bank having asked for access to Central Bank of Greece's emergency funding. I have not seen any reasoning for you doing so. Please could you explain?

The part deleted by you (I have reinstated it) is:
 * On 16 January 2015, Alpha Bank asks Greek Central Bank for Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA)

Awaiting your reply regards.\\


 * 1) Please sign your comments so I can respond directly to your talk page. 2) I reverted your reversion of my edit. You will notice that I didn't remove the item. On the contrary, I moved it forward to highlight it. It had been buried at the bottom of the history section, hiding it. I wanted to highlight it as in the next few days and weeks the situation in the Greek banking sector may become quite dramatic. If it doesn't, we can move the item back into the history section. 3)The reason I didn't explain my move, not removal, just move, was because I thought the reason was blinding obvious. Apparently it wasn't to you. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for my misunderstanding.

HMS Lutine (1779)
Shouldn't you have moved French frigate (1779) to HMS Lutine (1779) over the redirect as you moved Talk:French frigate (1779) to Talk:HMS Lutine (1779). By copy/pasting the content of French frigate to HMS Lutine (1779), the article has become disconnected from its history.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Hello acad ronin, I was reading the entry for HMS Amelia, thank you very helpful but...I have a birth record of a Frances Hutchison,born 1809 on the Amelia to David Hutchison,shipbuilder from Bath...Mass. While at Quebec City. It was he wasPressed onto the Amelia. At least pressed is what I can read.That does not jive with the dates for the arrival of the Amelia in Quebec city as per the entry...which is 1811. I hope I am making this comment properly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.183.78 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Amelia was a fairly common name for vessels, and it is highly unlikely that HMS Amelia was carrying passengers from Bath, Mass to Quebec in 1809, both because the timing is wrong, and because that wasn't what Royal Navy frigates did. That would suggest that your Amelia was a merchant vessel. Lloyd's Register for 1809 alone gives the names of 11 Amelias, but none was listed as sailing to Canada. That suggests that your Amelia may have been an American vessel. I also haven't seen any accounts of Royal Navy vessels running press gangs in Canada. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is suggestive. I am afraid that is the best I can do. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

HMS Dreadnought (1801)
Hello,

if you want, you can include my photo of the ship's bell of HMS Dreadnought (1801) in the text. I tried it, I did not get it back.

Greetings from Saxony-Anhalt.

--Colin Pelka (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Asia (1815 ship)
Hi Acad Ronin. I have finally gotten around to writing Asia (1815 ship) and noted that it was in two EIC voyages. Just wondering if you could cast you eye over the article and expand on EIC voyages and the article in general. I found that the ship was doubled which is the reason for the ton variation between voyages, which confused everyone. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

French ship Bourgogne (1767)
Actually it should be 1766 rather than 1767, in accord with Wikipedia convention to use launch year rather than completion year in the title. I have made a few changes to this article, notably as regards the dimensions. Remember that pre-metric French dimensions quoted were in French feet and inches, not in UK/US measurements. The French foot was approx 6.575% longer than ours. All measurements in our new book are in French units unless otherwise stated, which is going to play merry hell with the Wikipedia auto-conversion process; I suggest that you take the metric equivalents from the book (now printing and due out at the start of September) rather than enter the French feet and inches. Incidentally, Amazon have a couple of errors in their publicity; firstly, the dates in the book's title should read 1786-1861, and not 1786-1862; more significantly, the number of pages is 464, not the 352 quoted by Amazon (they have been informed!). Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ann/Anne 1810 East Indiaman
Hi Acad Ronin. I have been researching the 627 ton Ann/Anne that transported convicts to Australia in 1810 and subsequently undertook one voyage for the British East India Company. In the Lloyd’s Register of Ships their is no 627 ton vessel listed. There is a 629 ton vessel that was built in Batavaia listed in 1810, however master is not listed as Clarke. I have found that the 629 ton Ann was still plying in 1850 and shown as a prize and rerated at 665 tons. Earlier listings stated iron bolted in 1797 and 1799, so not sure when she could have been captured. I have also looked at the letters of marque and found that the a 627 ton Ann is also listed in 1805 again with different captain than that shown in Lloyds, however in 1811 for Captain Hamilton who is listed in Lloyds later. I am not sure whether to create an article for Ann (1810 East Indiaman) until further information comes to light when a page rename (move) would correctly identify her. Your thoughts? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Newm30, First of, I would prepare the article as Ann (1805 ship), rather putting Indiaman in the title as she made only one voyage for the EIC. The first Letter of Marque for the Ann (627 tons bm) that appears to be the one that delivered the convicts is 1808. That would rule out the Batavian vessel. I too see that as Anne, the 627 ton bm ship had a letter of marque in 1805. The National Archives seems to confound the 627 ton Ann with the earlier Ann (1799 ship), which was a prize, but she was only 384 tons bm. The problem I have found with Lloyd's Register is that I suspect that owners did not always update the entry for their vessel. It is well possible that if you have an Ann or Anne of 625-630 tons that appears on or before 1805, and continues through 1810, that that is your ship. As you say, we can always move the article if we get better info. But again, the Batavian seems out of the running. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Bussorah Merchant (1818 ship)
Hi Acad Ronin. I have just written Bussorah Merchant (1818 ship) and noted that it was a licensed EIC ship in 1825. Just wondering if you could cast you eye over the article and expand on EIC voyage and the article in general. Thanks Newm30 (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I have found a couple of other interesting or colorful tid-bits and will try to add them soon. Right now, though, it is past my bedtime. TTFN, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...

I would like to remove the redirect page HMS Wellington (U65) so that I can move the article about HMS Wellington (U65) to it. HMS Wellington was the name of several Royal Navy vessels, not just HMS Wellington (U65). Eventually I would like to create a disambig or ship list page for HMS Wellington.

Acad Ronin (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Technically that would be a case for the template; adding that to the redirect will tag it for speedy deletion. But do we have articles on a HMS Wellington other than U65? If not, there's currently no need to give that article a longer name for the sake of disambiguating it from articles that don't exist. Huon (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We have three HMS Wellingtons that I am aware of. HMS Hero (1816) was renamed Wellington shortly after her launch and retained the name for 40 years +/-, and the French brig Oreste (1805) was renamed Wellington after her capture. In addition to that, I think one can make a case for not using a general title for an article that then complicates things for people who want to write more specific ones. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Acad Ronin (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Glengarry Fencibles (1794)
Thank you for this edit to the Highland Fencible Corps however as all of the text in this article is supported by in-line citations please add citations for the new paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Neptune (1814 ship)
G'day. Just wondering if you know any details on Neptune (1814 ship) which undertook one chartered voyage for EIC? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Noticing your query here to Acad Ronin! a quick search of London Gazette yields (among many false trails) page 3934 of issue 20911 that one John Henry Martin Starcich, born London 1811, passed the exam board at Trinity House whilst serving as mate on the Neptune of London 643 tons. A useless piece of trivia??  There appear to be some 270 more entries between 1811 and 1850 in the Gazette involving the word Neptune, most involving "Neptune Street" or similar blind alleys. Not really my cup of tea!  Viking1808 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking1808, Good to hear from you. I did a little similar sleuthing and had to give up. There are too many Neptunes. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

HMS Boreas (1774)
Acad, there's a typo in the text of HMS Boreas (1774) which you inserted (on 29 May 2012). It says "... may have recaptured her in 1780. In 181 a vessel by the same name was struck off ..." Presumably you have access to the reference - can you insert the correct year? Thanks. Shem (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Shem, Unfortunately, I accessed Demerliac during free time while on a business trip. Checking it will have to wait until I am sent again. I have checked some other sources that I have, but so far no joy. I have tried to finesse the issue for the nonce. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick work, though! Thanks. Shem (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:HMS Emerald (1795)/GA1
Hi Acad, some time ago you added some information to HMS Emerald (1795) and used: Fonds Marine. Campagnes (opérations; divisions et stations navales; missions diverses). Inventaire de la sous-série Marine BB4. Tome premier : BB4 1 à 209 (1790-1804), as a reference. You added a link (presumably to the French National Archives). That link is now dead and I've had no luck finding a replacement. Do you have any ideas where I could find an alternative? The article is currently under GA review and although, strictly speaking, a link isn't required, it would be better.--Ykraps (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexander (1801 ship)
Just found this regarding Alexander whaling ships in New Zealand waters. Throws another spanner into the works. Alexander formerly Atlas? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sinclair
Hi Acad, I was wondering if you had any records available for the Sinclair also known as Lady Madeline Sinclair as to her build year. She appears to have an interesting story, associated with Bligh and also a privateer. She is listed in 1810, then I somehow can't open 1815 Lloyds. She disappears in 1818 Lloyds. If you have Times access can you check there? I know that she was 610 tons, built in Kingston on Hull amd had George Peat as captain in letter of marque in 1813. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sinclair (ship) - created Newm30 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference error
Hi Acad Ronin your edit here caused a cite reference error which was asking for a close reference tag. I put one in and it looked okay on preview. When I saved the edit I could see there is still an error that you might want to take a look at. Cheers.CV9933 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Countess of Harcourt (1811 ship)‎
Hi Acad. I just created an article of the Countess of Harcourt (1811 ship)‎. An interesting ship. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That went rather well
Hello,

given your command of French, you will have no difficulty with this:

I'll let you know as soon as I am open for business, of course. Looking forwards very much to this. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help me with...

I would like to use the page Duke of York (ship), which is currently a redirect to Duke of York (1817 ship), as a disambig page. We have numerous articles on Duke of York ships, one Age of sail merchantman, two HMSs, one hired armed cutter, one hired armed lugger, and two modern merchantmen. There are also two East Indiamen by that name that don't have articles, but could do with a short description on a disambig page, pending me, or someone else, writing about them.

Problem is, we have four pages from a blocked user (AFAIK), that point to "Duke of York (ship)", and are currently double redirects. If I just re-purpose the redirect page, that will cause the links in the blocked pages to be misleading.

Thanks,

Acad Ronin (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the links are to any mainspace articles - breaking the redirect should be fine. Mdann52 (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) There's actually two redirects: Duke of York (Ship) and Duke of York (ship) (note the difference in capitalization). You want your disambig page to live at Duke of York (ship), and Duke of York (Ship) to redirect there. I have set that up for you. I have also changed those 4 pages so they now point to Duke of York (1817 ship), which is the article referred to in those old archives. Now you are set to create your disambig page at Duke of York (ship). --Diannaa (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

HMS Saint Lucia (1803)
Hello,

I see that HMS Saint Lucia counts among your gigantic work. Do you happen to have any description of her? The reason I am asking is that I have photographed this model at the Musée de la Marine in a section normally devoted to naval ships, and it is said to have servied during the First Empire; Enfant Prodigue is the most proeminent 16-gun schooner listed by Roche (he says she was captained by a Lieutenant, so I don't quite know what to make of her status as a privateer or a warship, but he does occasionally list some private ships).

I realise that it's a bit of wishful thinking on my part, and that the model could be designed to be accurately illustrative without representing any particular ship, but since you have had some Holmesian results in the past, I though I'd give it a shot. Anyway, there is some light reading coming my way that could maybe contribute to the reflexion.

In any case, thank you and good continuation! Rama (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Demerliac
We are in business!

I gave it a quick glance, and it would seem that there are two different Enfant Prodigue, one being a privateer and the other a naval schooner. The discrepancies we were wondering about are consistent with one of either, as is the 14 or 16 number of cannons. More to come, I'm off making announcements on the various naval projects.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...
Do you happen to have any intuition as to which ship this model could represent? They say "English royal yacht", I was thinking maybe HMY William & Mary, but the description might match others ships, especially those for which we do not have articles yet...

Thank you very much in any case, and good continuation! Rama (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

George Sayer (Royal Navy officer)
Hi - Please can you add a source to your edits to this article. It took some time to write and properly source in the first place. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...

I would like to free the page Prince of Wales (ship), which is currently a redirect page, so that I can create a disambig page with that title. Currently, we have five articles that refer to merchant vessels by the name of Prince of Wales, and I hope to add more over time. We also have the disambig page HMS Prince of Wales.


 * You can simply edit the redirect (you can find the redirect itself here) and turn it into a disambiguation page, or have it redirect to Prince of Wales (disambiguation), which serves the same purpose. I've done the latter for now. Huon (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Halifax
The Keshen Goodman Public Library in Halfax and WikiProject Nova Scotia will be hosting an edit-a-thon on Saturday, 19 March 2016 focused on creating local articles and Nova Scotia content. We hope editors like your selves could help the less experienced members. Edit-a-ton JBignell (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with...

Someone moved the article Admiral Barrington (1781 ship) to Admiral Barrington. I have reverted the move for the article, and put a redirect on the "Admiral Barrington" page to Samuel Barrington, the individual for whom the vessel was named. However, I have not been able to revert the talk page. How do I get the talk page for Admiral Barrington to accompany the Admiral Barrington (1781 ship) article?
 * I managed it with these two moves. All good now? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

HMS Integrity
Hi Acad, I need some help. Can you provide a list of vessels named HMS Integrity? I am proposing to move the exsiting article about a colonial ship, but have not decided on how to describe her. My books are still in storage and I need the ship index created. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Newm30 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles with duplicate references
Hi, just in case you wondered, I am working my way through this list, where there are quite a few HMS articles with ref errors. Some of the LG references I have left as they may need a closer look. All the best CV9933 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. In this example, reference LG16540 is defined twice. The second time it is defined, it probably should be called LG16586. The problem for me though is the abbreviated  is also used twice, so do those refer to the actual LG16540 or to LG16586, or both? CV9933 (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay so these have a similar kind of issue LG16014 and LG18811 also LG15745 if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Cheers.CV9933 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great work and thanks for your effort - these are the last two problematic refs LG15950 and LG15874 Cheers. CV9933 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Isabella (1818 ship)
Hi Acad, Happy New Year. I have just created Isabella (1818 ship) and a quick search indicates this was a licensed ship as well as an extra ship of the British East India Company. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks once again Newm30 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hooghly (1819 ship)
Hi Acad, I have created the article Hooghly (1819 ship) and noted that the ship undertook two voyages for the EIC. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Essex
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly implies that the 1799 one that had the famous run-in with the whale belongs at Essex (whaleship). Making that title a disambiguation seems particularly poor form considering that none of the other ones are even bluelinked! I recommend moving the page back and directing the reader to Essex (disambiguation) for the other ships. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't say I agree. WP:SHIPS has declared all ships notable. In time I, or someone else, may come up with an article for one, or possibly more of the redlinks. Furthermore, again best practice for naming ships is to include the year of launch in the article name. One reason is that in 1820 there was an Essex launched in 1820, the Essex of the article in question, and I believe an English Essex whaler, the last two both operating in the South Seas whale fisheries. (There was also a third whaler Essex in the area in 1821. It doesn't hurt to signal that fact. We already have an Essex (ship) disambiguation page that includes the sub-links to HMS Essex, USS Essex, and Essex (East Indiaman); it makes sense then to have the disambig page Essex (whaleship). Being precise is generally a good idea, especially when many readers are novices to the area of ships and shipping. I have seen readers assume that any British ship named Essex must be HMS Essex. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if all are notable, that doesn't mean they all have a claim to being the primary topic. Do you disagree that this Essex is by far the most famous, and the one that the overwhelming majority of readers will be looking for under that title? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * True. On the one hand giving Essex the higher-level name would enable people to find her with one click. On the other hand, clicking twice might provide the opportunity for a little subliminal learning. Seeing that she was only one of several whaling ships with the same name operating at that time, themselves probably a tiny subset of all whalers then operating, might induce a realization just how anomalous her story was. Also, I am concerned about how much real estate Essex may come to occupy. Does she also get squatter's rights to "Essex (whaler)", and "Essex (whaling ship)"? As one point I believe she claimed "Essex (ship)". I spend much of my time on articles about Royal Navy ships, East Indiamen, and convict transports to Australia, all of the 1793-1815 period. I have noticed a particular tendency for the authors of articles about vessels dealing with Australia to assume that any such vessel was the only one in all human history to deserve to bear the name "Pinafore (ship)". Acad Ronin (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The whaler has at least an arguable claim to Essex (ship), although I don't know enough about national ships, merchantmen etc. called Essex to say. Certainly Essex (whaler) and Essex (whaling ship) are also this one (PRIMARYTOPIC still applies, there's no notion of "well, if this one 'gets' this title, it's 'fair' to distribute the others"). Similarly, the function of alerting the reader that there are other whaleships called Essex is served by the hatnote "This article is about...For other uses, see..." not by giving them the runaround. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I surrender. I have moved the info I put into Essex (whaleship) to Essex (ship). Feel free to revert my original move. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you make the request at Requested Moves? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have done one of those so no idea about how to go about it. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's explained at WP:RM –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Following up about this - it seems clear from my searches that the whaleship is not only the primary Essex whaler but also the primary Essex ship in general. I think it would be best to redirect Essex (ship) to the whaleship and to direct users who may be interested in something else to Essex (disambiguation) (or even make a "ships" subsection of that). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As you know I disagree. However, I can't stop you from doing what you wish to do.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hadlow (1814 ship)
Please would you check that this edit I made is correct? Not sure re the change of flag. As a vessel in government service, she would have flown the blue ensign AFAIK. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Return of Danish Ship Records
Hi Acad

The black register (Danish: Sorte Registrant) that we used a few years ago, but which then disappeared from our ken, has reappeared with a somewhat different url! https://web.archive.org/web/20051229090054/http://www.orlogsmuseet.dk:80/ This gives access to a search by first letter of name on skibsregister. ''' '''

In addition,

Danish Naval Museum database the new Danish Naval Museum database available here includes a wealth of technical drawings for sailing ships and includes some models. Danish built ships are separate from British built and these from Swedish built by a filter.

Although I have not been very active on Wikipedia recently, I have kept a watching brief. If you find these links useful or interesting, I will be content. If any help is needed with the Danish, I may be able to help. Viking1808 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

HMS Brilliant (1779)
I haven't a clue how to fix one of your recent additions.... the hired armed lugger Sandwich|Sandwich or hired armed lugger Sandwich|Sandwich Bgwhite (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to drop by and say thank you for creating Hired armed cutter Sandwich - it has been by far the most humorous non-vandalism title I've seen, and was surprised to learn it was a ship in our navy! Happy editing -- samtar talk or stalk 21:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article review
Hi Acad Ronin, As you have shown an interest in this article in the past, I thought you might like to know that it is now at Featured article candidates/HMS Emerald (1795)/archive1. I wondered if you might make some comments and even lend your support if you thought it met the criteria? Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hired armed tender Elizabeth


The article Hired armed tender Elizabeth has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * No evidence that any of these two small ships is in any way notable. Being mentioned one or two times (without even being clear which is which) are prime examples of passing mentions, not significant indepth attention.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Useful source
Lloyd's List is available online. Covers most years between 1741 and 1826, including all from 1779 on. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hyderabad State
In deference to WP:DTR, let me point out gently that your edit to Hyderabad State was of poor quality. Unsourced and unexplained. It is not the kind of edit expected from an experienced editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hyderabad State. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Cruizer-class brig-sloop
Not to be disrespectful but I didn't remove that section for fun. Mind explaining what you are doing? Tirronan (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah! thanks!

Remote islands
Although I did a little to improve Category:Remote islands, I don't think it can be kept. It is likely to be challenged as WP:Overcategorization, because the general description is subjective, and inclusion in the book Atlas of Remote Islands is non-defining.

A better way to navigate between these pages might be to add a link under "See also" or "External links" to

– Fayenatic  L ondon 21:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Fredericksteen
I'm not happy with the page move in the slightest. WP:COMMONNAME and this would suggest that the ship should remain at its original name. Will you move it back or shall I? CalzGuy (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the English language article is solely notable because of the link to Beaufort. Whatever name variation appears after HMS I'm unconcerned about, but at HMS it should stand on this wiki. By all means put it at the HDNS name on the DK wiki if you want. That doesn't bother me. You should have consulted before moving. It was a major change. If you look at the article most of the text is about her RN career. That is what complies with policy. So are you going to move it or shall I? CalzGuy (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And here's how I see it - many years ago Jimmy Wales setup Wikipedia and editors and users frolicked to it to create articles and read them. And this community developed policies and guidelines, among them WP:COMMONNAME and this. They are what keeps the project ticking over and puts articles in places where most people will find them.These policies point to HMS Fredericksteen being the most common name. It is the variation used in the widest circulation, most notably in the 2 biographies of Francis Beaufort, the ships most notable commander, without whom the article would be a redline now. Redirects can be created from all other variations. That is how WP works. WP doesn't work when editors come along and move articles to their own pet name variations. The expansion you have made to the article is mostly quite good. You are lucky you have the time to make such changes. But suggesting that I couldn't be bothered to do the research and therefore my opinion doesn't count is plainly rude and ignorant. The article doesn't comply with policy and you seem to be ignoring that fact. You say that you "... had to move her" seems to ignore the thousands of articles on WP that are moved each week by consensus with the proposer making a suggestion on the article talk page and others collaboratively contributing to a discussion to find the most appropriate location. WP:BEBOLD is a guideline and suggests that I can safely revert your move, which I would prefer not to do. I would prefer we could agree a workable policy-bound location for the article. But it seems we can't. So revert it is. I'm always open to discuss more appropriate naming, but the the current location does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME. CalzGuy (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Seri Rambai
Hi. You looked at this article (about a VOC cannon in Penang) when I wrote it a few months ago. It's now a Featured article candidate; you're welcome to add comments. Singora (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ships afferent to 74-gun "Victoire"
Hello,

I have just drafted something on the 74-gun Victoire; I hope to have some time to skim through other sources for more material, but I noticed some strange things on British ships mentionned in her career: Thank you very much for everything, and cheers! Rama (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Victoire is said to have captured the 10-gun HMS Levant on 28 August 1778, but I cannot find a corresponding ship; do you have any mean to confirm whether such a Levant in known?
 * Victoire and Bourgogne encountered the 32-gun frigates HMS Thetis and Montreal on 4 May 1779. They captured Montreal; Roche states that Victoire captured Montreal the next day and brought her to Malaga, while our existing articles state that she escaped. I cannot imagine a way to conciliate these statements, yet the specificity of the details that Roche provides is troubling; do we have any further details that could nuance the story, or further tip it one way or another?

Frederikssteen in Danish service
Hi AR

At the following page User:Viking1808/officers of frederikssteen I have put together such notes on the Danish history of this ship that I can access. Have a look and comment or use as you see fit. There is obviously too much irrelevant detail, but some may fit in HMS Fridericksteen or elsewhere. Viking1808 (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy Trafalgar anniversary!
... many happy returns and articles! Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Zealand Point
Hi AR

I wonder if you can look at my sandbox User:Viking1808/sandbox where I have rewritten the course of the battle. I know the references should be recorded as a,b,c,d as each logbook is referred to several times, but I find this is beyond me!! My idea is that two paragraphs should totally replace one paragraph in the existing article.

If it all looks good after your attention, can you lift the section into the proper article Battle of Zealand Point

Also, can the banner at the top of the article now be removed - do you think? Thanks in advance Viking1808 (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)